Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

Completely missing from Republicans’ outright opposition—and some Democrats’ ambiguous hedging—is a recognition of what’s at stake.

At a time of widespread environmental devastation, much of the U.S. political establishment appears allergic to large-scale public projects that would solve the climate crisis through directly challenging the economic status quo.

This attitude was perhaps best encapsulated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s glib mockery of the Green New Deal plan laid out Thursday morning by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). In an interview with Politico, Pelosi referred to the proposal as “the green dream or whatever they call it.” She went on to suggest that the plan had not been thought through, saying, “nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”

Pelosi is not the only lawmaker who is reflexively resistant to the plan. There is the predictable opposition from Republicans, including Rep. John Shimkus (Ill.), the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change. He said at a hearing Wednesday, “We should be open to the fact that wealth transfer schemes suggested in the radical policies like the Green New Deal may not be the best path to community prosperity and preparedness.”

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), meanwhile, turned to red-baiting, saying the Green New Deal “sounds too much like a Soviet five-year plan.” Lamborn’s critique echoed President Trump, who warned in his State of the Union (SOTU) speech on Tuesday that “in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence—not government coercion, domination and control.”

Pelosi herself has directly aided this anti-socialist appeal. At a CNN Town Hall event in 2017, Pelosi was asked by a New York University student, who cited the growing popularity of socialist policies among Democrats, whether the party “could move farther left to a more populist message?” She responded, “We’re capitalists, and that’s just the way it is.” In the aftermath of Ocasio-Cortez’s shocking victory last year, Pelosi was asked whether democratic socialism was “ascendant” in the party. Her response: “No.” And when Trump said in his SOTU address Tuesday that “Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country,” Pelosi applauded.

This opposition to democratic socialist policies helps explain why Pelosi has been so resistant to embrace the Democrats’ rising left flank that wants to see immediate action on redistributing wealth and power away from the top echelons of society. Such demands for a radical restructuring of the U.S. economy is a critical element underpinning calls for enacting up-and-coming left-wing policies like the Green New Deal.

Pelosi’s ideological positioning has, not surprisingly, dovetailed with opposition to the Green New Deal. Last year, Ocasio-Cortez joined a demonstration at Pelosi’s office organized by the Sunrise Movement—a youth-led environmental justice group—which called for the creation of a select committee to craft a Green New Deal. Rather than instituting such a committee, however, Pelosi instead created a select committee on climate change more broadly, with powers much more limited scope than what organizers had demanded. Pelosi’s committee, furthemore, will not require members to eschew campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry, another demand laid out by the Sunrise Movement.

Meanwhile, other Democratic leaders are more cagey and guarded. Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), the chair of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, released an ambiguous statement today in which she declined to support the Green New Deal but praised the passion behind it. “We must examine the entire range of tools we have to tackle the climate crisis,” she said. “I share the sense of urgency behind the Green New Deal and I believe that we must act boldly to reduce greenhouse gases and to make clean energy a pillar of our economy.”

Completely missing from Republicans’ outright opposition—and some Democrats’ ambiguous hedging—is a recognition of what’s at stake. The planet faces monumental warming with threats not just of sea level rise and expansive droughts but massive bouts of famine, economic devastation and refugee crises. Instead of grappling with the massive destruction wrought by worsening climate change, the political establishment is continuing to deflect the debate toward criticism of those who want action that’s too bold, or public projects that are too ambitious.

Yet this opposition to costly and large-scale legislation apparently doesn’t extend to projects that concern endless war and tax cuts for the wealthy. Bipartisan lawmakers, including Pelosi, handed a major win to Trump last year by passing the staggering $716 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2019, which included funds for a nuclear buildup. Meanwhile, in 2017, Republicans gleefully lined up behind Trump to hand a tax break to corporations and the super-rich that will add nearly $2 trillion to the U.S. debt.

This incongruence is enabled by a media echo chamber. During an interview with NPR’s “Morning Edition” on Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez was grilled by host Steve Inskeep about how she would pay for her climate plan. “It is just certainly a lot of money. You don’t specify where it’s going to come from other than saying it will all pay for itself.” This refrain has been echoed across major media outlets since the concept of a Green New Deal was first introduced, from Politico to “60 Minutes.” As Aylin Woodward notes in Business Insider, “Much of the discussion so far about the Green New Deal has centered on how to pay for its lofty objectives.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s response to Inskeep was instructive. “I think the first move we need to do is kind of break the mistaken idea that taxes pay for 100 percent of government expenditure,” Ocasio-Cortez answered. “It’s just not how government expenditure works,” she said. “We can recoup costs, but oftentimes you look at, for example, the GOP tax cut which I think was an irresponsible use of government expenditure, but government projects are often financed by a combination of taxes, deficit spending and other kinds of investments, you know, bonds and so on.”

She went on to point out the long term failure of a market fundamentalist approach to environmental policy in dealing with climate change. “We have tried their approach for 40 years—to let the private sector take care of it,” she explained, laying out a case for massive government intervention that–until recently–has rarely surfaced in mainstream political discourse.

Yet, amazingly, this hostile political climate is failing to squash the Green New Deal. To achieve the goals of staving off the worst effects of climate change while putting the United States on a path to environmental sustainability and economic equity, the Green New Deal calls for eliminating net greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, massively investing in government programs to update infrastructure and build up renewable energy sources, transforming sectors of the economy such as manufacturing and transportation to remove carbon emissions, retrofitting buildings and providing guaranteed living-wage employment to anyone who wants a job.

Not all of the details have been hashed out, and it will no doubt take considerable struggle—and outside agitating—to ensure any final plan is informed by left principles. But, nonetheless, the proposal represents the most ambitious effort yet to tackle the climate crisis. And it correctly refocuses the question of cost away from whether the United States can afford to pay for such a bold proposal to whether it can afford not to.

Already more than 60 members of the House and 9 senators have co-sponsored Ocasio-Cortez and Markey’s resolution. Much like other bold left-wing proposals such as Medicare for All and tuition-free college, the Green New Deal has emerged as a consensus policy back by a number of high-profile potential 2020 Democratic nominees such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Bernie Sanders. And over 80 percent of the American public supports the Green New Deal, including 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans.

Republicans and centrist Democrats alike seem content continuing to oversee the same economic and political consensus that led us to the brink of climate chaos. But for the vast majority of Americans who want real solutions to the crisis, today’s Green New Deal resolution marks a clear escape path from the stale politics of the past.

Miles Kampf-Lassin, a graduate of New York University's Gallatin School in Deliberative Democracy and Globalization, is a Web Editor at In These Times. He is a Chicago based writer.
miles@inthesetimes.com
@MilesKLassin

You've already posted that Information, "Germany has crossed a symbolic milestone in its energy transition by briefly covering around 100 percent of electricity use with renewables for the first time ever on 1 January."

YOU posted that! "YOU CAN NOT SUPPLY EVIDENCE TO BACK THAT UP." I don't have to.... YOU did!

Don't be outrageously ridiculous, be serious.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-02-15 06:55:34

NO. Germany DOES NOT export an amount equal to 2/3rds of its total electricity production.

YOU CAN NOT SUPPLY EVIDENCE TO BACK THAT UP.

Germany DOES export electricity to France...and that is because France generates electricity from nuclear material while Germany burns less expensive....and far dirtier..... soft coal

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-14 16:53:58

It will take the people rising up in disgust of a backward inept government with the guidance of an exceptional leader who is currently unknown. We have tribes of people who cannot accommodate change and because of this, they will fail as a group and when this happens hopefully there will still be time for green corrections. Otherwise some of us may go to Mars and live in tunnels made by Musk's tunnel machines and eat food raised in fermentation tanks.

Posted by John Magnuson on 2019-02-14 15:15:29

That 35% renewables covers nearly 100% of German domestic electrical needs.Germany sells the excess within the EU. Germany now produces nearly enough electricity from renewables to cover their domestic electricity consumption.

By the way, Germany closed another 2 coal turbine facilities!

Posted by ronbo on 2019-02-14 13:46:43

from a pie chart printed in Clean Energy Wire

German power production in 2018from AG Energiebilanzen 2018

Renewables...... 35.2%

Hard Coal............12.8%

Lignite..................22.5%

(lignite is soft coal)

Natural Gas...........12.8%

Nuclear...................11.7%

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-14 13:18:56

The difference between "domestic electricity used" is and "electricity produced" is huge. Germany now produces and EXPORTS about half of what they produce. All of their new plants are carbon-free as they retire the old carbon-producing plants.

Snarking that Mahomes didn't make it to the Superbowl is inherently negative.

Is this your real personality?

Posted by ronbo on 2019-02-14 10:52:27

Renewables overtake coal as Germany's main energy source. FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Renewables overtook coal as Germany's main source of energy for the first time last year, accounting for just over 40 percent of electricity production, research showed on Thursday.Jan 3, 2019.

--------------

you continue to disregard the truth.

________

shht on Mahomes? are you nuts?

love watching the kid, but pointing out that he's just starting out and hasn't taken a team to a championship is NOT degrading him or heaping scorn upon him.

I've pointed out that an athletic career isn't built upon a single, only mostly successful, season.QBs aren't evaluated in that way.Montana hadn't a fraction of Mahomes talent, but informed fans well understand why he's in the Hall of Fame

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-14 10:17:35

But Germany does produce near 100% of their domestic electricity using non-carbon technology while they sell the rest. And they continue to add exclusively new non-carbon sources as their old turbines expire.

They are breaking records and you are... complaining? Complaining that it's "slow". You are clearly demand perfection; let's seek solutions... even the start of solutions.

And... you shit on Mahomes because he didn't make the Superbowl? Clearly you are a balanced individual.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-02-13 16:20:43

WHAT IS INCONSISTENT in pointing out that you are being misinformed by advocacy sitesand telling you that Germany ISN'T WITHIN A MILE .... or TWO DECADES ....of using non-polluting sources for the bulk of their energy generation?

" Progress takes time"

EXACTLY. and germany is making slow progress.

it has not made any great leap forward..... and if you look at the objective truth, GERMANY has not reduced its pollution levels.

Mahomes indeed had a helluva season, but it was but one season and the team didn't reach the Superbowl.

Randall Cunningham had a helluva season in '88 but ended up with few scalps on his pony

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-13 14:09:31

Inconsistent. Just like the banking and oil industry, you say you support renewable energy, but, then you don't.

Germany just opened another gigantic field of wind-energy turbines which are pushing it's renewable electrical production up ABOVE 100% of domestic electricity. Why object to that?

Mahomes had a fantastic 2018 with the Chiefs - just as renewables did in the energy market. Are you going to dismiss Mahomes success because although he broke records; but, HE DIDN'T BREAK ALL THE RECORDS!

Progress takes time. As you can obviously see, Germany is making fantastic progress. Why object to that?

Posted by ronbo on 2019-02-13 08:15:33

" Also, why do you automatically assume regular ratepayers will foot the bill for this? Where did that come from?"

silly me, I have the firm conviction that Congress, as constituted for the past few decades, the present and the near future is NOT going pony up umpteen scores of billions of dollars for this stuff.

so yeah, Stephen, I expect more of the same sort of "tax breaks" that allow private companies to avoid paying taxes while still forcing the consumers to pay through the nose for infrastructure improvements.

wind and solar are free?

check out the truth of that in the experiences of the folks in California who have installed solar panels after being told that tax breaks and low installation costs would allow them to recoup their investment in 7-10 years.

------------

I would love if the numbers worked out better for wind and solar....and in some places, mostly really LPD and rural and either hot or windy or both, they actually do....

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-12 17:50:08

Both wind and solar are cheaper per MWh than nuclear and coal and in many markets they already beat methane/natural gas, even with grid storage factored in.

Potential renewable energy capacity of a region, that is how much does the wind blow and sun shine throughout various times of the year, is something the US govt has a very good handle on for for the entire country. Best numbers for the capacity needed by NYC commonly come in between 10 and 15 GWh. Already without the federal government doing anything beyond what it's doing today, more than that much capacity of offshore wind power is already about to come online in New England. That doesn't even scratch the surface of the total potential wind capacity of the New England coast. So there's definitely plenty of wind and sun available for the job. Problem is if we leave this to markets, the transition won't happen anywhere near fast enough.

Also, why do you automatically assume regular ratepayers will foot the bill for this? Where did that come from? Did you miss the part where we can just print money? And that once you build the machines, wind and solar are free? Free thing goes in, valuable thing (electricity) comes out.

Posted by Stephen Price on 2019-02-12 17:27:36

"Germany has crossed a symbolic milestone in its energy transition by briefly covering around 100 percent of electricity use with renewables for the first time ever on 1 January 2018."

comes from....... Journalism for the energy transition

05 Jan 2018 Sören Amelang

READ THE REST OF THE PARAGRAPH

" Germany has crossed a symbolic milestone in its energy transition by briefly covering around 100 percent of electricity use with renewables for the first time ever on 1 January. In the whole of last year, the world’s fourth largest economy produced a record 36.1 percent of its total power needs with renewable sources. But the country’s progress in emissions reductions stagnated for the third year in a row, likely putting its self-imposed 2020 climate targets out of reach."

what you YOU reading???? and are you getting stuff taken entirely out of context??????????

------------

I don't have even the SLIGHTEST objection to reducing carbon emissions.if you knew me, you would know that I've spent my whole life as an advocate for modest living and anti-consumerism.

I've rarely owned a car or driven, and walk or take public transportation.

what I do object to are claims that are based on misinformation or wishful thinking rather than on fact and truth.

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-12 16:14:16

IS the capacity there?

the population of Wyoming and Montana, COMBINED, is about 1/6th of NYC.

trying estimating the start up costs and figuring out how those costs get met.

are people in NYC going to pay an electricity bill that jumps 600% when their bills are already well above the national average?

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-12 16:06:14

For solar, those places are at roughly the same latitudes. Why would they be any different besides density? Anyway, a renewable-based grid will already by definition have to transmit power over longer distances to smooth out intermittency even with, even after accounting for grid storage. Tapping into plains an mountaintop wind and plains solar from a few states away is already a foregone conclusion.

Also, lets not forget, those are both located on this thing called an ocean, which has tons of wind power. The Kennedys et al finally lost the NIMBY fight on offshore wind in New England, so the building boom in offshore wind is already on.

Like I said, the capacity is there, the trick is getting that capacity where it needs to go. That's engineering, not science fiction.

Posted by Stephen Price on 2019-02-12 13:53:10

Keep reading...

"Germany has crossed a symbolic milestone in its energy transition by briefly covering around 100 percent of electricity use with renewables for the first time ever on 1 January."

" Germany’s carbon emissions are not declining much, despite renewables increasing to almost 30% of the country’s power mix this year (see figure below), and over 50% of its installed capacity. Unfortunately, coal has also increased to about 30% and, along with power purchases from France and other countries in Europe, is used to load-follow, or buffer, the intermittency of the renewables.

Germany’s carbon emissions per person actually rose slightly in 2013 and 2015. The country produces much more electricity than it needs and is not addressing oil in the transportation sector.

As Peter Rez at Arizona State University discusses, renewables will not make much of a dent in their total carbon emissions. The problem is that even when renewables produce enough energy to supply all of the country’s electricity, the variability of the renewables means Germany has to keep the coal plants running, over half of which use the dirtiest of all coal, lignite.

In fact, in 2016, 7 out of 10 of Europe’s biggest polluters were German lignite power plants.________________________

perhaps you would be so kind as to post excerpts from sources supporting your claims, rather than links, to help me more fully understand

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-12 11:04:07

They are now (today) almost complete in phasing out carbon producing energy sources and NOW regularily produce 95% of their electricity carbon-free.

They created jobs AND provide the lowest cost electricity AND cut carbon!

Posted by ronbo on 2019-02-12 10:26:48

yes, we do have alternatives for rural and suburban areas.

there is not a workable alternative for big cities and a LARGE percentage of Americans live in those big cities.

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-12 08:16:51

"Germany went 95% carbon-free electrical this year!"

no, Germany did not, it set a target date decades in the future, 2050!

and Germany relies on nuclear power plants and plans on keeping them in operation even as they age beyond the originally anticipated phase-out date

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-12 08:02:24

Your research deficit is OUTSTANDING.

Unfortunately ITT mods don't publish links - at least in a timely fashion. The links aren't difficult to find... it just requires LOOKING. Is your opinion "establishment" so it doesn't need to be supported with facts?

Posted by ronbo on 2019-02-12 07:30:22

Germany went 95% carbon-free electrical this year!

Don't you just hate that America doesn't exist in the same world as Germany?

DERP DERP

They created jobs AND provide the lowest cost electricity AND cut carbon.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-02-12 07:26:22

what sort of low bars do you prefer to patronize?

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-11 15:54:09

I've spent my adult live working for healthcare non-profits and collecting food for the homeless and setting up food pantries and farmers' markets after work.

and I'll be as curmudgeonly as I feel like being when reading comments from self-righteous and ignorant dipspits, Stephen.

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-11 15:53:21

I sure as hell don't advocate doing nothing.

rather than fruitlessly destroying our economy for a non-solution, I'm fully in favor of Manhattan Project and beyond levels of funding for funding a a better and cheaper alternative

and finding it fast.

it's GOT to be cheaper and have reasonable start-up costs of it won't be accepted in Asia and Africa where 75% of the population reside

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-11 15:49:40

I once got together with a group of like-minded folks and set about trying to levitate the Pentagon.

nonsense proposals and pipe dreams have a way of working out less than optimally.

the solution to fossil fuel pollution is going to have to come from scientists and technicians, not attention-seeking politicians or lotus-eaters.

sorry if pointing out reality depresses you, but should the USA end all oil usage in a decade, it won't change a damn thing because the USA is but 4 or 5 % of the world and the rest of the world is not only burning more oil but the overall rate of increase is accelerating.

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-11 15:42:47

Stephen, you figure incorrectly. there is no way in hell that wind and solar can cover the needs of our large cities within a decade in ANY practical way.

might work out well in Montana and Wyoming, but try accounting for Baltimore or New York City.

In your teen years the old New Deal coalition was finally collapsing under the weight of Jim Crow and the post-war economy was beginning to encounter stag-flation. We're in a different century where everyone who was teenager during or after 9/11 had their entire adolescence or college years shaped by the '08 crash and the utter failure of the market system to respond in a remotely not-evil manner. Your comments here indicate you have no idea what's possible. Neither do I, but at least I'm making a play for what I want to see happen in the real world. What the hell are you doing besides being cranky on the internet?

Posted by Stephen Price on 2019-02-11 14:20:20

So any attempt to do anything is useless so we should just do nothing and wait for oceans to rise? We're already in the bad scenario. We've got twelve years to avert the worst case scenario. Reality is not constrained by your political horizons.

Posted by Stephen Price on 2019-02-11 14:13:42

We definitely do have alternatives. Existing solar, wind, with some geothermal and hydroelectric generation are more than enough to do the job. Wind and solar in particular have come a long way in the last ten years. Grid scale batteries that are affordable and not reliant on lithium are in service in the multi-megawatt range today. We'll need a new national grid to get that power where it needs to go, but we were kinda due for a new one anyway.

Posted by Stephen Price on 2019-02-11 14:09:54

Ending use of fossil fuels within a decade is DEFINITELY technically feasible. Not easy, but all the "easy" options are foreclosed to us at this point in time, so talking about them is meaningless.

Posted by Stephen Price on 2019-02-11 13:53:44

As opposed to what? What alternatives are there that rise to the challenge? This is literally the only time a member of Congress has proposed anything on the scale needed to avert the coming climate catastrophe.

Do you ever have anything constructive to say? Or is everyone who has ideas even slightly different from yours stupid, childish and full of crap? You're like a broken record.

Posted by Stephen Price on 2019-02-11 13:46:16

that they met for discussions and that they had quite different ideas is not any indication that they were ever going to reach agreement

and they never did.

and not because of Lewinsky, but because Clinton never had the clout with the Dems in Congress.

all he was doing was trying to sell Gingrich on a commission to study privatization in exchange for defanging Gingrich's obstructionism.

the Bush era threat was real.

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-11 11:41:28

noting that we have no workable alternative to fossil fuels at present doesn't mean that anyone is supporting the fuel industry

or even that anyone is happy that we have no cheaper alternative.

perhap your understanding is deficient

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-11 11:31:10

My links have not been posted. Please google "gingrich, clinton, social security" and you'll learn of that magical night when Bill and Newt met in secret on Oct. 28, 1997 to confirm their plans to dismantle Social Security. Monica soon distracted their conversations.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-02-11 08:28:18

Opinions are quite common. Reducing environmental damage is not.

Since his opinion is that it's "Asking the impossible", I can tell that radio personality Pesca has a closed mind. How long did it take to do the "impossible" and put a man on the moon?

Propaganda for the wealthy banking and petroleum owners isn't going to address the problem. It's part of how we got into the problem.

........................................The Green New Deal Will Never WorkTo change the status quo, bold plans need to be rooted in reality.By MIKE PESCA

"The goals of the Green New Deal are impossible. Which is exactly what makes it a great idea.

"Huh? Don’t you get it? By asking the impossible, the Green New Deal asks us to consider the possibilities! You see, a plan’s actual workability as a plan is no longer the value of a plan. Plans are good for thinking, and thinking leads to dreaming, and dreaming is the only way that change occurs—that’s just science, folks.

We’ve blown past the era of evaluating an idea’s worth by subjecting it to the standard of “feasibility.” Workability or feasibility is no way to judge any idea put forth by the exciting and innovative Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, says Shadi Hamid, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution"

"Well, call me a tired old watchdog, or fuddy-duddy fact finder—I do not assess policies through the lens of the charismatic and compelling Ocasio-Cortez, who has become the perfect distillation of the Trumpian, big swing, mega-MAGA hashtag, nonconstrained by literalism, post–reality-to-accuracy politics age. I tend to judge ideas by considering the opinions of experts who know more than I do. And when it comes to the Green New Deal, almost none of these people think that the United States can achieve its goal of 100 percent renewable energy by 2030.

Pointing this out, however, is passé, or anti-progressive, or nay-saying. Guilty—I am in fact literally saying nay. And if you polled the leading experts or polled even the leading edge of renewable energy optimistic experts, they would admit that it is not possible to get to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. The Union of Concerned Scientists hope we can get to 80 percent by 2050. Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson, co-founder of the Solutions Project and 100org—the 100 percent clean, renewable energy movement—has estimated that his goal cannot be achieved by 2030 but holds out hope for 2050. By comparison, the U.S.’s energy use is currently only 18 percent renewable."

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-10 19:47:08

"Everyone informed" HA!

You remind me of a Republican who thinks name-calling is both mature and smart.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-02-10 11:34:28

silly soul, the plan to privatize and plunder Social Security was most advanced in THE BUSH ADMIN, and not before then.

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-10 10:41:30

you're kind of ridiculous, bobo.

I don't support the petroleum in any way other than the same way that you do.

EVERYONE informed and sincere knows that ending the use of fossil fuels within a decade or even two is a practical impossibility.....and that ending such usage merely within the USA is pretty much pointless as usage in the rest of the world will continue and continue to rapidly increase.

there is no real benefit from stripping usage here and here alone.

there's only one planetary atmosphere

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-10 10:40:13

Actually, the person who got in the way of Clinton and Gingrich Social Security cuts was Monica Lewinsky. And if you have not noticed, Pelosi forced "pay go" to paralyze progressive issues. While I do like and use bandaids, ACA is merely Republican policy of corporate subsidies that have neither cut COSTS or covered over 14,000,000 people. It's TWICE the price of single-payer for the 23rd best healthcare. ACA was establishment policy to prevent single-payer and continue corporate subsidies.

Never trust a millionaire. It's rare to find one who loves people more than they love YOUR money.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-02-10 09:10:23

More power to you! I'd like to see Unions and people purchase say... CBS. To stop the network from pushing establishment nonsense and to give our culture a respite from toxic wealth syndrome. Just look at the people who've abandoned the DNC/RNC trap... unfortunately the courts refuse to use RICO laws against the DNC/RNC monopoly.

It's telling that we live in a media culture where we must choose between lies that we are spoon fed to support... Benghazi or Russia hacked the election.

I get as much pushback from neoliberals as Republicans. They share the same noxious anger from the manufactured cognitive dissonance.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-02-10 08:57:01

Did you sit out the past few years? Miss the 10-point plan... the New Green Deal?

Individuals can base opinion based upon past actions... I believe in that. But, to insist they can't change simply denies history. Change is inevitable.

Those, like you, who always attack and demean the left probably are NOT supportive of progressive policy. Your support of the petroleum industry is your tell.

Posted by ronbo on 2019-02-10 08:43:45

" that corporate-owned, old fossil Pelosi"

when you write "corporate-owned" are you referring to the woman who saved Social Security from being privatized and plundered during the Bush administration?

do you mean the woman who kept Obamacare from being strangled by corporate interests and instead got it through the House?

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-09 17:47:31

Yep, the support of the public is there but now comes the real challenge - getting the support of congress. Unfortunately that's not likely to happen unless we get money out of politics and we already know how the supreme court feels about that. Not to be a pessimist but under the 2 party system the Dem party is the only hope for real change, and they just put that corporate-owned, old fossil Pelosi back in charge. We have no time left for "the lesser of evils". We need to get money out of politics so that we can have a government that works for mankind instead of money donors. Otherwise the hope of saving the country and the planet are nil. Here's hoping that the progressive momentum of people like Sanders and AOC continues to grow and the American voters wake up and demand that their representatives actually represent their wishes.

Posted by hotrod71 on 2019-02-09 15:37:57

you err.

predicting the future has little to do with being able to change it.

knowing that Miss Cleo is in deep doo-doo doesn't empower a person with the ability to pull her out in time to save her from it.

Bernia didn't elevate any progressive agenda, he's not all that progressive.

all he did was re-state late-60s liberalism.

it's difficult to be enthusiastic for the ideas of my teen years when I can't see that they are going to be accepted and adopted.

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-09 12:10:49

If you could actually predict the future, you'd NOT be spending your time here. You'd have saved Miss Cleo from bankruptcy, then death and started a successful fortune-telling business.

All of your negativity has already been crapped out by Eeyores within the establishment media - nothing constructive or informative. I'm not certain what point you are trying to make.... Don't try? Give up? Believe the wealthy DNC/RNC establishment?

Since Sen. Sanders elevated the progressive agenda, public support for the agenda is over 70%! Can we exchange your self-defeating montra with enthusiasm for good ideas?

Posted by ronbo on 2019-02-09 09:19:01

not nonsense at all.

the Green new Deal is going to be given lip service and then whittled away and ignored,

the House dems have already cut out any hope of ending fossil fuel use in any time soon.

without that, there's not any chance of totally revamping the economy.

Posted by fuster on 2019-02-09 08:31:27

Thank you Miles. We know what is coming and we will be blamed for not acting to prevent it. This seems the ultimate act of disaster capitalism.

Fuster is out here chitting up a storm of nonsense - along with establishment DNC Dems and Repubs. Hard to make the right decisions when money is their primary value.